I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.

[quote=tkdnick]I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.
[/quote]

Your friend is 100% wrong and misinformed. You can look up abortion in the Catechism, and it says that it is ALWAYS wrong. It does NOT say there are any exceptions.

Perhaps your friend is confused because if a woman is in danger of death and requires some sort of medical treatment, for example an operation or chemotherapy, etc, she can seek the treatment for herself. If the baby dies as an UNINTENDED consequence of treating the mother that is NOT an abortion. An abortion is not a treatment for a disease, it is directly killing the baby. THAT is never acceptable.

[quote=tkdnick]I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.
[/quote]

What this person is probably referring to is an ectopic pregnancy. That is when the baby attaches itself to the inside of the fallopian tube, instead of travelling down the tube into the uterus. As the baby grows it stretches the fallopian tube (the inside of this is normally about the width of a single hair from your head!) and the tube may burst - it will if the baby does not immediately die from the tightness of the space.

I do not know how early in pregnancy this can be detected by ultrasound or any other diagnostic test, but it will most likely very dramatically announce itself by about 6 or 7 weeks after fertilization.

If left alone both the mother and the baby will die. Ectopic pregnancy requires urgent surgical intervention. If the surgeon cuts and removes either the entire fallopian tube or the portion containing the dying or dead baby, this is not an abortion. Perhaps sometime in the future it will be possible to detect this condition before the baby is damaged or dead, and also to remove him or her and transfer to the uterus for implantation. As of today, however, there is no way of saving the baby.

The intention here is to try to save both mother and baby. If, however, either the fallopian tube is slit open, the baby removed, and the tube repaired, or drugs are used to induce an abortion - both of these procedures are considered direct abortion and totally forbidden by the Church.

Many people mistakenly believe that the acceptable surgical procedure for ectopic pregnancy is a Church approved abortion. This could not be further from the truth. If surgical intervention does not happen, the mother will die from hemorrhage caused by the ruptured fallopian tube, or infection, and the baby will die, too - if not already dead by the time of diagnosis.

I had an ectopic pregnancy about 36 years ago. I knew nothing about it until I literally dropped to my knees while standing at a bus stop, from the sudden sharp intense pain. Surgery was done, and I recovered completely.

I brought out the Catechism in our discussion and attempted to show The Church’s teaching, and while it seemed clear to me, it never actually said “it is never acceptable to have an abortion.” Maybe Humane Vitae (sp?) has more clear info?

[quote=tkdnick]I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.
[/quote]

[quote=tkdnick]I was talking with another Catholic friend last night and I held the position that the Catholic Church is against all forms of abortion no matter what the situation. My friend said while that is mostly true, there are some very rare exceptions. His example was if it is very early in the pregnancy and it is obvious that both the mother and child are going to die if carried to term, then it acceptable to have an abortion. Is this true? I had never heard anything like it before.
[/quote]

SOOOO wrong…there is no reason for it. I feel bad for Catholics who believe it is ok in certain situations! Poor unborn children…:crying: My sister told me that someone told her that organ donation goes against the Church. Can you believe things people come up with??? How shouldnt they get some answers before they jump the gun!

That’s what I have always been taught and have come to believe. For me it seems pretty obvious. It’s all over Catholic radio and other Catholic publications. Course, this same person was discussing with said it’s “not practical” to vote for someone simply based on their beliefs regarding abortion, euthanasia, fetal stem cell, etc. He said there is so much more that has to be done and basically you have to go with who can do the best job and get the most done. certainly NOT a Catholic teaching!

[quote=tkdnick]I brought out the Catechism in our discussion and attempted to show The Church’s teaching, and while it seemed clear to me, it never actually said “it is never acceptable to have an abortion.” Maybe Humane Vitae (sp?) has more clear info?
[/quote]

Your friend is being an ignoramous… which usually happens when someone wants to justify their own behavior in light of the fact that the Church clearly teaches against it.

Tthe Catechism is VERY clear in saying that EVERY abortion is a grave evil and that human life begins at conception. From the Catechism on Abortion:

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.[71] Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.[72] My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.[73]

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law: You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.[74] God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.[75]

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life.
“A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,”[76] “by the very commission of the offense,”[77] and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.[78] The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: “The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death.”[79]
“The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.
When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined…
As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights.”[80]

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, “if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual… It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence.”[81]

2275 “One must hold as licit procedures carried out on the human embryo which respect the life and integrity of the embryo and do not involve disproportionate risks for it, but are directed toward its healing the improvement of its condition of health, or its individual survival.”[82] “It is immoral to produce human embryos intended for exploitation as disposable biological material.”[83] “Certain attempts to influence chromosomic or genetic inheritance are not therapeutic but are aimed at producing human beings selected according to sex or other predetermined qualities. Such manipulations are contrary to the personal dignity of the human being and his integrity and identity”[84] which are unique and unrepeatable.

I think Joan M’s post deserves a second look. She addresses what I believe is the cause of the confusion. At some point someone heard this explanation, and they told some one else while leaving out some important detail, like the differece between removing the embryo while preserving the fallopian tube or removing the embryo along with part or all of the tube. If time isn’t taking to explain the difference clearly and simply there is, unfortunately, a lot of room for misunderstanding.

[quote=1ke]Your friend is 100% wrong and misinformed. You can look up abortion in the Catechism, and it says that it is ALWAYS wrong. It does NOT say there are any exceptions.

Perhaps your friend is confused because if a woman is in danger of death and requires some sort of medical treatment, for example an operation or chemotherapy, etc, she can seek the treatment for herself. If the baby dies as an UNINTENDED consequence of treating the mother that is NOT an abortion. An abortion is not a treatment for a disease, it is directly killing the baby. THAT is never acceptable.
[/quote]

if she gets treatment knowing its going to kill the baby is that still an abortion?

[quote=TarAshly]if she gets treatment knowing its going to kill the baby is that still an abortion?

what about rape and incest cases?
[/quote]

If her life is in danger she can get treatment as long as that treatment is not a direct abortion. The babies death as a result of the life saving treatment would be considered an “unwanted side effect”.

Direct abortions are never moral even in the cases of rape or incest. That would be making one person pay for the sins of another person.

If left alone both the mother and the baby will die. Ectopic pregnancy requires urgent surgical intervention. If the surgeon cuts and removes either the entire fallopian tube or the portion containing the dying or dead baby, this is not an abortion. Perhaps sometime in the future it will be possible to detect this condition before the baby is damaged or dead, and also to remove him or her and transfer to the uterus for implantation. As of today, however, there is no way of saving the baby

The intention here is to try to save both mother and baby. If, however, either the fallopian tube is slit open, the baby removed, and the tube repaired, or drugs are used to induce an abortion - both of these procedures are considered direct abortion and totally forbidden by the Church.

If the baby is still alive how could this procedure help save it?Is there some kind of way to reimplant the baby?

[quote=TarAshly]if she gets treatment knowing its going to kill the baby is that still an abortion?

what about rape and incest cases?
[/quote]

What is it about rape or incest that makes it necessary (or a necessary “option”) to kill the baby? Is the baby *guilty * of the rape or incest? Why do we think another crime (murder of the child) will somehow justify anything, up to and including healing the mother?

In Arab countries under sharia law, they kill the woman who has been raped (pregnant or not). Here, we *just * kill the baby. I guess that makes us more civilized, eh?

[quote=leschornmom]If the baby is still alive how could this procedure help save it?Is there some kind of way to reimplant the baby?
[/quote]

Joan M. answered this question in her post as well, just above the portion that you highlighted.

[quote=Joan M]Perhaps sometime in the future it will be possible to detect this condition before the baby is damaged or dead, and also to remove him or her and transfer to the uterus for implantation. As of today, however, there is no way of saving the baby
[/quote]

Ectopic pregnancies are devastating, especially as the women often know they are pregnant and are joyfully expecting their child’s birth. To lump them in with women who choose to kill their babies is not fair.

Ectopic pregnancies are devastating, especially as the women often know they are pregnant and are joyfully expecting their child’s birth. To lump them in with women who choose to kill their babies is not fair.

I am sorry that I missed that part of her statement. I was certainly not grouping the two by any means. I agree with you 100%. I was only asking because I was once afraid that I had a tubal pregnancy and I was devestated to hear that if that had been the case that I would have no other choice but to destroy it. I thought from what she had said that it meant that there might be another chance for those babies and mothers that are greiving over such a choice (or lack there of).
I am so sorry.